Replies

Reason as we see reasoning? Right and wrong? We can't even nail down the definition of that within our species. And you're off by several orders of magnitude on the timeline.

I was responding to the statement :

micro-evolution + 3,500,000,000. I was using THAT timeline presented to me to show that it can't be possibly done.

It's a statement of probabilities.

Sure, and based on the belief that given the astronomical probability within the impossibly short timespan that it can be done without intelligent input, I call it FAITH.

A priori probabilities of a specific outcome often look improbably large. Yet, somehow, some outcome always occurs.

This sounds like the tautology --- They survived because because they are the fittest, and they are the fittest because they survived.

Shuffle a deck of cards, chances of your specific card order is 1 in 8x1067, but guess what, a valid card order happens every time you shuffle -- just not the one you were looking for.

Your card analogy is not the most apt one to use.

Here is a better one ---

“From actual experimental results it can easily be calculated that the odds of finding a folded protein are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power (Sauer). To put this fantastic number in perspective imagine that someone hid a grain of sand, marked with a tiny ‘X’, somewhere in the Sahara Desert. After wandering blindfolded for several years in the desert you reach down, pick up a grain of sand, take off your blindfold, and find it has a tiny ‘X’. Suspicious, you give the grain of sand to someone to hide again, again you wander blindfolded into the desert, bend down, and the grain you pick up again has an ‘X’. A third time you repeat this action and a third time you find the marked grain. The odds of finding that marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row are about the same as finding one new functional protein structure (from chance transmutation of an existing functional protein structure). Rather than accept the result as a lucky coincidence, most people would be certain that the game had been fixed.” Michael J. Behe, The Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999 (Professor Department of Biological Science Lehigh University)

“Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues in one protein is totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially… These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point it will be destroyed – along with the organism carrying it.” Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72. (Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering)

Darwinist postulate that it happens by blind chance yet the hard evidence says it can’t be done. Until they say exactly how it is done they are no better than the writers of children’s books.

I was using THAT timeline presented to me to show that it can't be possibly done.

The billions timeline or the millions timeline?

This sounds like the tautology --- They survived because because they are the fittest

You're having a hard time with probabilities. Because we are here, and because the Bible tells you so, you seem to think that we are the end desired result. With that thinking, a priori probabilities calculations are valid in theory, it is almost impossible.

But you still try to argue science (now statistics) with your theological view. The scientific view does not require us as the intended outcome, and with no intended outcome all a priori probabilities calculations of us existing go completely out the window.

IOW, I care that the cards are shuffled, not that are shuffled in a particular order.

Michael J. Behe, The Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999 (Professor Department of Biological Science Lehigh University)

This is the guy whose definition of a scientific theory includes astrology, right?

Darwinist postulate that it happens by blind chance yet the hard evidence says it can’t be done. Until they say exactly how it is done they are no better than the writers of children’s books.

Evidence also points to zero peer-reviewed papers supporting creationism and its descendant, intelligent design.

It could be true that mutation and natural selection are not the only two mechanisms. Since you believe that they aren't, write a paper arguing that a higher being is involved and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal.

If you could do it, you would benefit creationism immensely.